I find the date unusual ! By this time we are told that plain brown was the colour for tanks and yet here there is a full 3 colour camouflage scheme in progress almost worthy of Captain Solomon. At the same time the Tank Corps recognition panels are being applied and the rear drive sprockets renewed, so some degree of overhaul taking place obviously. Are you able to identify the tank ?

I don't see it at all. Where is the three colour scheme? I see a tank that has been painted now being repainted. Some of the paint is wet, some is dry and the repaint isn't complete. So I think you're reading too much into this photo.
Gwyn

OK, I can see what you're getting at regarding the paint now, but I'm still far from convinced. I still think that as we have a mix of old, new, wet and dry paint here it's a very difficult picture to interpret. I'll keep an open mind about it but I'll need more evidence before I believe this is a multi-colour scheme. I also think it possible this photo is post war. The tank has been at Bovington as a training tank (see the number 603) and is now being repainted possibly in a gloss dark green as its post war colours and maybe prior to service in Germany.

I am also not convinced it's 9262. There's too little of the last digit to be sure. It could be, but I don't feel able to say.

This photo is one of a large collection taken by John Warwick Brooke, official war photographer 1916-1918. The location is given by IWM as Erin and is likely the 'Tankodrome' at this location. The date is also given as 22 June 1918. Other photos apparently from the same location show vehicles on a large washdown facility.

The tank is undergoing various work, including what appears to me, to be a two colour camouflage scheme applied over the original colour, patches of which have been left to give a third colour. The darker colour has been used to disguise the vision slits on the sponson which was common practice when tanks were camouflaged. One of the patches of original colour contains the number and also a chalked inscription ' TRANS FR' possibly meaning Transport to France ? This would obviously not have been chalked on a freshly painted surface.

The number is partially obscured by the painter's ear and in the spirit of open mindedness, I am prepared to accept that the missing number may have been a '1' although '2' seems to be more likely given that the port side sponson was changed for a male on 9261. However, closer examination reveals that rivets have started to be removed around the sponson, possibly preparatory to changing to a male ? If this was the case, why bother painting the female sponson which was about to be changed ??? That, as they say, is the Army for you !

Gwyn has identified this tank as a trainer from Bovington ( No 603.) Presumably rushed out to France as a reinforcement. Somewhere I have seen a photo of this tank in its training guise, does anybody know of this picture and most of all does it show the number?

The Google Landships site is the work of Robert Martin. I have in the past contributed material to it, which is why you'll find my name in the credits. I do not use the database because I have my own databases specified tailored to my needs and containing much more information than that on Google Landships.

Good point about the original caption, which in this case is likely to be accurate. I also concur with the interpretation of TRANS FR, and that the chalked markings (there are others) will be on old paint.

I have no record of a photo of tank 603 other than this one.

Although I know that 9261 was a Composite with a port Male sponson, I do not know whether 9262 was also converted to a Composite. It may well have been (many Females were so converted - 14th Battalion had no Mark V Females at all). So whether this tank is in the process of being converted isn't much help in determining whether it's number is more likely to be 9262 or 9261.

I shall be similarly open-minded about whether this photo is evidence of a three colour camouflage on a Mark V in June 1918. I am sure modellers would be thrilled. For my part, I need more evidence to be convinced.

I have no plans to make my databases public. My research I do publish. Forthcoming is an article on the Mark IV at Bovington, and an academic article on Mark I production. I am currently working on a comprehensive study of British tank production to 1920, and some collaborative projects. All contains a lot of new information.

I have been published in enthusiast's magazines, such as Tracklink and Tankette. Where possible I publish in peer-reviewed academic journals. There is an article of mine in the Transactions of the Bristol & Gloucestershire Archaeological Society on the identification of the tank at the Museum of Lincolnshire Life as Gloucester's presentation tank. I have another article currently being peer-reviewed for the Journal of the Society for Lincolnshire History and Archaeology. I also give talks. I am speaking at the Museum for Lincolnshire Life on Tuesday, and I'll be back in Lincoln for a talk organised by the Friends of the Lincoln Tank in September. Goodness knows where or if I'll get my tank production stuff published. Maybe I'll just leave it to the nation.

I really enjoyed my visit to Lincoln museum of life two years ago. I have contacts with two military history publishers if you are interested. I am going down the pub with one of the agents in London on Friday to chat about another book he wants me to do. I could mention your stuff then if you want.

I have already helped a friend get in contact with them. His T-35 tank book is now coming out in August called Fallen Giants via Amazon. Another friend is waiting for his tank book to be proofread before publication. (You will not get rich but it is nice to see your research in print)

Accepting the need to be careful of museum tanks at all times, and especially those with chequered prior histories, Bovington's MkII is painted in a scheme reminiscent of the scheme on the MkV above. Sort of cloudy with squiggles (technical description, I know......). To my eyes the photo looks like different colours rather than different wet/dry old/new shades of a single colour.

It is my understanding that this scheme was applied either when she was converted to a Composite for post-war exhibition touring or converted to a MkI Female replica after that. Certainly, all her 3 previous wartime identities have been overpainted. I've always thought it to be entirely spurious, but could it be a homage to a scheme that was actually used?

Looks to me like they are removing paint...not applying it.
Those three men all have the same bucket of "paint remover".
This would also explain the weird patterns in the camouflage colours.
Just my observation.